Let me get this straight - when Markos says that he will "focus on important shit" on his grassroots site whose goals include influencing the Democratic party, anyone who brings up how the Democratic Party treats women shabbily is not only wrong, but is confusing the two.

However, when other, feminist oriented, grassroots websites encourage their readers to engage idiots like Markos in conversation about abortion, we are declaring war on the Democratic Party through sites like Daily Kos.

I was going to say "diphits" but jackass is far more appropriate.

"Why is it so hard for the heavyweights of the liberal blogosphere to undersand that, for many of us, choice is not something that "gets in the way" of more important Democratic party platform issues. It is the number one issue."

Amen Sister. I am so sick of quarrelling with local democrats on this issue. Our local DFA chapter is incredibly nervous about advertising a pro-choice stance. We are also faced here, in PA, with a Pro-life Democrat--Bob Casey Jr.--who is supposedly *our only hope* to unseat Santorum. I could go on and on about how irritating it is for me to experience the sexism (yes, I consider it sexism) of so-called liberal democrats.

Thank you for positing this!

Ugh. This is infuritating. For me, a good window on the argument going on there is the comment titled "Whatever". "Whatever"?! Feminists argue that the Democrats need to demonstrate consistent and ferocious support for choice, and what they get at dailyKos is a big shrug and a "Whatever".

The condescension is galling. The problem here is not that NARAL "just doesn't understand how the two-party system works" -- it's that we're devolving into a one-and-a-half party system. (I humbly suggest that perhaps it's the Democrats who are forgetting how a two-party system works.)

What I love is this bit about NARAL supporting Chafee--"nothing says they have to endorse an anti-abortion Democrat, but clearly they don't understand that good politics -- turning the Senate Democratic is far more beneficial for their issue (women rights) than anything the Republicans can muster."

Right. He can't take NARAL seriously because they supported a pro-choice Republican, but we're supposed to take the Dems seriously when (1) they have started supporting anti-choice candidates; (2) self-declared Democratic leaders like Kos are constantly telling us that abortion is a side issue; (3) they run ads like the one currently running on that site ("I'm Rachel Wacholder, I will Lay Out For Every Last Ball").

Mmm-hm. Kos, defender of women's rights.

And, what will you do when the Democratic party continues to ignore you?

This makes me want to vomit. Or laugh and then vomit, I'm not sure.

The same thing that's happening in the democratic party is happening among liberals. Our important ideals are being flushed down the toilet for the sake of "winning." Not that it's actually working. Hello, John Kerry. That man ran as far away from liberal principles as he could get, and he still lost, and still got called a "liberal elitist."

Not to quote Robynn (sp?) from ANTM (because I hate her), but "If you don't stand for something you'll fall for anything" and that's what the dems have done, and what Kos and his band of merry assholes are recommending we all do.

Kudos to NARAL for standing up against all of this. And I imagine it will be much easier to pressure Lincoln Chafee to do the right thing with some of their money in his pocket.

Why Iguana, us silly girls will just give up and crawl back to our kitchens, of course.

.....

What I really love about all this is that, in the end, this particular move by NARAL pretty much still falls in line with Markos "can't we all just get along - until the Democrats are in charge" schtick too. Unlike endorsing Chaffey, the point of us going over and bugging the hell of out of Markos is to get the Democrats to be more attractive to its female base. It just doesn't happen to fall in line with how Markos thinks we'll get Democrats elected. More and more it's feeling like this is mainly because it involves him, and not just everyone else, making compromises.

Markos' problem is that he was so badly disgusted by NARAL's previous errors that he no longer takes seriously anything that they do... even when they're doing something right.

I think it's a really good idea for more women to participate in political discussion, if for no other reason than practice (since, quite frankly, writing comments on blogs is unlikely to affect political outcomes in any measurable way). On the other hand, Kos has got a really good point about how poorly NARAL understands politics, and by extension, how poorly its followers are likely to understand them. I find the comments here about Casey and Chafee here particularly telling. Here's the test:

Aspazia: Name a single Democratic contender other than Casey with a chance of winning Pennsylvania in 2006. If you say Chuck Pennachio, tell me what his available campaign funds are, and why you think this is sufficient. Tell me what your plan is for winning Pennsylvania with that amount of money as a starting point.

Bitch Ph.D.: Tell me with a straight face that even a Democratic senate apathetic about women's rights is worse than a Republican senate downright hostile to them. If you actually believe that, then I guess our basic assumptions are too far apart for us to have a discussion. If not, then you better take the Democrats seriously, yes. It's called choosing the lesser of two evils.

I think the fundamental error in assumption here is that it matters particularly much to the desired outcome (better laws, better judges) exactly what a candidate's personal position is on abortion; there may be pro-choice Republican senators, but there are no Republican senators who vote pro-choice, and frankly, that's all that matters. When NARAL does things like support Chafee over Langevin, and then seems to be surprised when Chafee votes for people and laws hostile to women's rights, it does get very hard to take them seriously. I find it unlikely that Langevin would have voted for Janice Brown, for instance, and as a result of supporting a "pro-choice Republican", they lost a vote in favor of the right to privacy, from which most modern women's rights are derived. It was utterly predictable, and utterly depressing.

NARAL's problem is that they either don't understand or aren't willing to respect their realistic margin of operation in elections: finding and supporting Democratic candidates with a strong focus on women's rights to the point where they are competetive, or given two Democratic candidates with decent chances to win a seat, making sure that the one with women's rights in view takes it.

That's all they can do. Sabotaging the Democratic candidate for not being sufficiently pro-choice doesn't help them; it gets them more people like Chafee who consistently vote against their interests, no matter what they said up front.

Things aren't quite as bad as all that, though. The trick to party loyalty is that it runs both ways. A Democratic anti-choice senator is going to vote for pro-choice laws and judges who believe in the right to privacy about as consistently as a Republican pro-choice senator is going to vote for anti-choice laws and judges who don't believe in the right to privacy.

Kos isn't actually hostile to women's rights any more than he's hostile to environmentalism or civil rights. He's just had enough experience with politics to no longer be under the mistaken impression that bills are passed because of their merits to society, or that senators are elected because of their abilities or integrity.

Bills are passed when you have enough political capital to buy them. Seats are won when you have enough money to reach as many people as your opponent, and you are sufficiently compelling in your message. There's a reason cynics are also called 'realists'.

Jenny: There is a *lot* of merit to appealing to the centrist women's vote (that might otherwise go Republican) by making sure you're finding candidates friendly to women's rights. This is why I said that NARAL is actually right on this one. You do have to make sure that the candidate will be able to reach enough women for them to notice and come out to vote, however.

One really useful thing NARAL *could* do, for instance, is to create a list by district of all of the female-friendly Democratic candidates, sort them by electability, and then come up with a top-ten list worth fighting for. Measured in terms of centrist women's votes taken, even Kos might show some respect for that.

Bitch Ph.D.: Tell me with a straight face that even a Democratic senate apathetic about women's rights is worse than a Republican senate downright hostile to them. If you actually believe that, then I guess our basic assumptions are too far apart for us to have a discussion. If not, then you better take the Democrats seriously, yes. It's called choosing the lesser of two evils.

I vote Democratic, and I take the Dems seriously.

Which is why I insist that they stand for their core issues.

Don't patronize me.

Bitch, Ph.D.:

My comment was a direct response to your quote, "He can't take NARAL seriously because they supported a pro-choice Republican, but we're supposed to take the Dems seriously [...]"

If you imply that you don't take the Dems seriously, please don't be surprised when people think that you don't take the Dems seriously. It's not being patronizing; it's calling you on a logical error.

Incidentally, for what it's worth, I'd have a hard time showing you condescension in general; I have a healthy respect for your writing. That doesn't mean I won't say so when I think you're dead wrong about something, though.

The fundamental assumption is *not* that people's personal opinions matter. It is that what people *say in public* matters. If Kos is personally pro-choice, but constantly tells feminists that we are being "divisive" by saying that abortion rights matter, then his rhetoric is divisive, and will drive women away from the Democratic party. And if you think that commenting on blogs is poor preparation for political argument, what makes you think that writing blogs is politically legitimate? Why is it women and pro-choice feminists who are constructed as politically naive in your original comment? I'm quite willing to say that it was a mistake for NARAL to support Chafee--but to say, as Kos is doing, that he "doesn't take NARAL seriously" because of one mistake is *incredibly* politically naive and foolish, and far more rigid and divisive than women insisting that abortion rights--which how many times do we have to say this, are *one of the most popular platforms of the Democratic party*--are central.

Thanks so much for this post. I tried commenting over at Kos's original post, but I got shouted down pretty quick, and started to think I was crazy for a minute there.

You go Dr. B

Yeah, Luna, I left a comment to the original post too - figure I will go back and read all the other comments (and the insults I'm likely to get) tommorrow when I've calmed down a bit. Anger is good, coherence is better.

Zed, I was just complaining the same thing to my Dad, and Amanda's post on the subject says something similar.

I don't understand why guys like Markos seem to think that winning over my brother-in-law and uncle will be easier than winning over my sister and aunt. All are Republican, but the latter are pro-choice. Abandoning the pro-choice position isn't going to woo the two that aren't pro-choice over, but it will further convince all four that Democrats are just schmucks.

Also, there's a big difference between taking the Democrats seriously and believing that "a Democratic senate apathetic about women's rights is worse than a Republican senate downright hostile to them."

Dr. B's point is that we aren't naive enough to think that women's rights will be advanced just because the Senate is full of Democrats and not Republicans. Markos whole post screams of "why don't you all go make sandwiches while us big boys do the real work." My foremothers didn't fall for that one in the '70's and I'm not falling for it now.

NARAL's endorsement of Chafee reeks more of desperation to me than naivity. And I don't see Markos blasting unions for endorsing Republicans.

NARAL's endorsement of Chafee reeks more of desperation to me than naivity.

Jenny,

The Democrats did not and will not field an anti-choice candidate to run against Chafee in RI. (The primary hasn't even happened yet.) If they had, then it might -- might -- make sense to endorse Chafee (instead of withholding their nomination entirely. There's really no defending NARAL on this one -- endorsing Chafee at this stage in the game was a mistake, and a big one.

Regarding unions endorsing GOP candidates, here is what Kos said about that back in 2003 (for what it's worth):

Of the major unions, the Teamsters has always been my least favorite. Its endemic corruption has tainted the entire labor movement for years. It has consistently supported Republican candidates (such as Bush I, Reagan and Nixon). And it is perhaps the least environmentally sensitive of all unions (e.g. pushing hard for oil drilling in ANWAR).

But I'd rather have Teamster resources pulling for our guy than theirs. Gephardt will enjoy their help in the primary election, but I especially look forward to their assistance in next year's general election.

But I think the fundamental point is, sometimes our allies make mistakes -- that's no reason to write them off as "unserious."

Bitch, Ph.D.:

Quoting you: "If Kos is personally pro-choice, but constantly tells feminists that we are being "divisive" by saying that abortion rights matter, then his rhetoric is divisive, and will drive women away from the Democratic party."

I'd absolutely agree with this statement. He hasn't said that, however. He's said that NARAL, not all feminists, has problems understanding political realities, and is divisive by virtue of undermining the only viable Democratic candidate in an area. Sadly, he's chosen to do so on an issue where NARAL is doing nothing more than encouraging women to get their feet wet on political blogs, which sends out a rather less pleasant message, but more on that below.

Quoting you: "And if you think that commenting on blogs is poor preparation for political argument [...]"

What I originally wrote: "I think it's a really good idea for more women to participate in political discussion, if for no other reason than practice [...]" (i.e. I think that commenting on blogs is great preparation for political argument, but I don't think it actually has any direct political effect.)

What you wrote: "Why is it women and pro-choice feminists who are constructed as politically naive in your original comment?"

They weren't, unless you want to equate NARAL, Aspazia's point of view, and your own (now retracted, so there's not even any need to take that as applying to you personally) comments about being expected to take Democrats seriously as the beliefs of all women and pro-choice feminists. I expect that there are a lot of women and pro-choice feminists with excellent grasp of the political situation.

Quoting you: "I'm quite willing to say that it was a mistake for NARAL to support Chafee--but to say, as Kos is doing, that he "doesn't take NARAL seriously" because of one mistake is *incredibly* politically naive and foolish [...]"

I think Kos took Naral's support for Chafee to be part of a larger, naiive pattern of behaviour. He may actually be wrong on this, but I haven't dug deeply enough into NARAL's history to comment on that particular aspect. Either way, you're right, and I said as much in my first sentence. He's allowed himself to be blinded by his prior encounters and is making a stupid (and somewhat sexist) knee-jerk assumption that women inspired by NARAL to participate aren't going to be bringing anything useful to the table, simply because NARAL has been counterproductive in the past. This is obviously a very bad thing, for reasons that have been outlined by several, including myself.

Don't mistake my objections to the writings of a few individual women in this thread to be an objection to women in politics.

Quoting you: "and far more rigid and divisive than women insisting that abortion rights--which how many times do we have to say this, are *one of the most popular platforms of the Democratic party*--are central."

It's not about whether or not women are insisting that abortion rights be central -- it's about whether or not they're insisting on a political impossibility.

If you have two serious Democratic contenders, one of which is pro-choice and the other is not, you'd be a nutcase to go with the one that is not. If you don't have two, however, the correct tactical decision given our current system is not to dilute support for the serious contender by throwing in behind someone who is exceedingly unlikely to get anywhere, or worse, throwing in behind the Republican opponent just because he's making pleasing noises in public.

(Side note: you might be able to fix this submarine-style by just fixing the voting technology. A number of places are experimenting with Condorcet voting systems, and if that ever becomes valid for state elections, this problem goes away completely.)

The bottom line is that it's not enough to oppose someone whom you dislike; you have to have a viable plan to get your replacement in instead. That's all that this is about. If you convince me, for instance, that Pennachio *is* viable, I'll change positions on Tennessee in a heartbeat. I can even give you a starting point for coming up with a plan: look at Jesse Ventura's governorship campaign. He was outspent by an order of magnitude, and still won. Campaigning to be Governor is quite a bit different from campaigning to be Senator, with an entire engine opposing you, however, and Pennachio is down by not one but *two* orders of magnitude on funding.

Make me believe you have a plan that will work, and I'll even chip in, even though it's not my state. I don't *like* Casey. I just don't see a better alternative.

Luna: Sorry you got shouted down; unfortunately on sites like Kos and Eschaton it's really hard to get past the human sewage sometimes.

You're not crazy (even if you think I'm wrong, or even an idiot on this particular matter). Just keep slugging away and learning how to best line up your ducks.

Remember: most of the world thought the world was flat, once. Having a lot of people yelling at you doesn't necessarily even make you wrong, much less crazy.

And I imagine it will be much easier to pressure Lincoln Chafee to do the right thing with some of their money in his pocket.

That's naive in the extreme. I will, of course, eat my words if Chafee ever -- ever -- votes against a Bush judicial nominee. But there's simply no way that will happen. Any money spent assisting Chafee's 2006 reelection campaign is not just a waste of money, it's actively hurting the cause of choice. People are right to be upset with NARAL's endorsement.

[Of course, I'm not defending the Kos post Ann linked too, either. That's idiotic. NARAL make mistakes, but they clearly do a lot of good, too (like the anti-Roberts ads) and Kos is just being pissy about them for no good reason.]

Jenny K:

Quoting you:

I don't understand why guys like Markos seem to think that winning over my brother-in-law and uncle will be easier than winning over my sister and aunt. All are Republican, but the latter are pro-choice. Abandoning the pro-choice position isn't going to woo the two that aren't pro-choice over, but it will further convince all four that Democrats are just schmucks.

Quoting you:

Also, there's a big difference between taking the Democrats seriously and believing that "a Democratic senate apathetic about women's rights is worse than a Republican senate downright hostile to them."

Dr. B's point is that we aren't naive enough to think that women's rights will be advanced just because the Senate is full of Democrats and not Republicans.
Well, they definitely won't backslide as fast. Right now, women are heading for a lot of trouble because there just aren't enough Democrats to stop the atrocities. Janice Brown, for instance. The fight over Roberts isn't looking good, either, though I'm not quite ready to concede the fight on that yet.

It really does come down to, "Would you rather have a Republican?", though, which is why I made the statement you quoted. If NARAL can find a credible contender, I'll change sides in a hurry, and frankly, I think Kos will too, if he can get over his grudge. He's neither hostile to the cause, nor stupid.

But credible contender first, and *then* elimination of the pseudo-Democrats.

Thad - I didn't mean desperate in the sense of "oh no, the Democrats are going to try to get an anti-choice candidate elected" but in the sense of "God, those stupid Democrats are getting far too soft on their pro-choice chance, time to put their feet to the fire."

Zed - He's annoyed that NARAL told us all to go give him a good talking to and he pretty much directly quoted "united we stand, divided we fall" in that same post, so yeah, coming from someone who also told us all to go away so he can focus on "important shit" I think it's probably safer not to give him the benefit of the doubt of the moment.

I wasn't getting Markos position on "compromise" and winning elections from just his recent posts on NARAL. Overall, from what I've read, he seems to think that we need to get more moderate Republican's over to our side, and seems to think that compromising on the pro-choice stance is one of many reasonable ways of doing this. It also seems like choice is the only thing we are supposed to "compromise" on, everything else just usually involves reframing the debate.

"Well, they definitely won't backslide as fast."

Yes, you're right, so I'll just go back to making my sanchwiches and wait my turn, which is sure to come when the Democrats are back in charge. /sarcasm

The fight isn't getting bad just because there aren't enough Democrats, but because the Democrats aren't standing their ground. If we all just focus on winning elections, and not on what the party actually stands for, not only are we actually less likely to win elections, but it's less likely to make a difference if we do.

i haven't had the chance to read through this whole thing, just the beginning and end, so apologies if this is a repetition...
i feel like there are two points wholly missing from this debate here:
1. it looked to me like what sparked this issue with Kos was a call by NARAL for women to open up discourse about reproductive rights - not to shut Kos up about his thoughts...
2. i saw a post on the Kos thread about this regarding an endemic problem in the left... namely, that instead of NARAL calling Kos up (or e-mailing him or whatever), they facelessly put out a call for other people to write stuff on his blog. and Kos's response was not to contact them, but to stand on his own soapbox. and now, we've got the same thing here...
i mean, all this throwing around the word 'divisive' doesn't seem to be building any bridges, so what's up? it seems to me that things'd work a bit smoother if we just talked things over without any rhetorical capital at stake - look for mutually beneficial positions to take and whatnot...

as far as this whole debate going on here, now... i think there's strong arguments on both sides... decisions and votes are not made based on ethics or promises, they're made based on political capital, for sure...
but we also can't count on partisanship to save the issues we care about. it was left-wing support of a losing candidate that got nixon elected, right?
it was the same support of a losing candidate that got nixon to push along the endagered species act and some other pretty powerful and long-lasting legislation. he also revolutionized the idea of a 'war on drugs,' got more fully committed to a terrible conflict and destroyed the concept of patriotism...
sometimes, ya gotta push the issues regardless of the partisanship and, sometimes, ya gotta recognize that the issues aren't gonna go anywhere without the broad-based political support that a viable candidate from a viable party can bring...

all these things have to come together, i really don't think it's one or the other or one should come first or whatever... if we push issues to the exclusion of political support bases, we're lost... and if we push political strength to the neglect of issues, we've empowered a vapid majority... neither one works.

Jenny,

I understand what NARAL thought they were doing by endorsing Chafee, but what they actually did doesn't make any sesne, especially since the anti-abortion Dem candidate pulled out of the primary race. This is a case where the threat -- "IF you nominate an anti-choice candidate, THEN we will endorse their opponent" -- would have been much more powerful (and rational) than the execution.

What NARAL did was like getting into a game of chicken where the other guy blinks early, and they step on the gas and ram him anyway.

There are any number of more productive ways NARAL could hold the Dems' feet to the fire -- Zed has detailed some of them upthread. I should add that instead of endorsing Republican hacks like Chafee, NARAL might try rewarding Dems like Paul Hackett, who remain staunch supports of the right to choose even when it hurts them politically.

Sorry to overload on the posting, but I just found this at Republic of T (who happens to also be pissed at NARAL, but for a very different, and much better reason, IMHO). RofT found it in the comments at dKos (which I'm avoiding for a prescribed waiting period for health reasons):

"The Democratic Party works to [e]nsure that the Pennsylvania senate race is between two anti-choicers* by trying to manuever pro-choice Dems out of the primary. So NARAL retaliates by endorsing a Republican in an election that will be between two pro-choicers. Not to hard to understand."

...sounds pretty savvy to me too...even if some Democrats may not like it.

*since I'm assuming this is because two anti-choice candidates makes it more likely the Democrats will win, this just goes to show just how full of bullshit the argument that "building a movement is more beneficial...than singular devotion to....pet cause" is. Or rather, that for this strategy to work, the movement has to stand for something.

Not to hard to understand.

Well, you'll have to explain it to me, then, because I still don't get how endorsing a Republican who is pro-choice in rhetoric only in a race against a Democrat who is actually pro-choice (in response to a completely unrelated race in a different state) helps anything.

Jenny K (quoting you quoting me):

"Well, they definitely won't backslide as fast."

Yes, you're right, so I'll just go back to making my sanchwiches and wait my turn, which is sure to come when the Democrats are back in charge. /sarcasm

Why don't you go do something productive, instead, like finding (or creating!) a place where a pro-choice candidate can win, or working on a way to take money out of the equation? Nobody is asking you to make sandwiches. *I* am asking you to either make things better, or at least avoid making them worse. Fundamentally, that's what Kos is trying to say as well, though he's admittedly being a prick about it.

Quoting you again:

Sorry to overload on the posting, but I just found this at Republic of T

You might want to read at least a few comments down from that linked starting point, as it reiterates why that summary is basically *wrong*. Pennachio isn't being "maneuvered" out of the primary. He's being disregarded because 1) He's not polling above Santorum, and Casey is. 2) He's basically broke, as far as campaign money goes. Also, that entry seems to be conflating the upcoming election, which involves Santorum, Casey, and Pennachio, with the previous one, which

Pennachio will be facing *over five million dollars* worth of advertising campaigns. His response will have to fit in a hundred thousand, even assuming he quadruples his current funds by election time. His best case scenario, barring someone coming up with something brilliant, is going to be getting a solid enough chunk of Casey's vote that Santorum gets re-elected.

Unless you can change the numbers, Pennachio has *already lost*. You get to pick between Casey and Santorum. I don't think there even *is* a third contender, broke or otherwise, in Rhode Island, just a miserable choice between Chafee and Langevin again. Granted, we're a bit early yet.

If you can change those numbers, or change the meaning of those numbers, let me know! Seriously! I'd really, really like to turn out to be wrong here, and if there's something I can do that is more likely to get Pennachio a seat than Santorum, I *really* want to know about it. I like Pennachio. He's dogged, and seems honest. Right now, he's also a lost cause.

But this is what I meant by politically naiive: if your actions are more likely to put a Republican in the Senate than they are to get your candidate into the Senate, your strategy is fundamentally *broken*, whether or not the available candidates stand for everything you want them to stand for, and whether you want to allow for it or not, they do stand for things. Casey in particular attacked Santorum for his views on working mothers, and other than his anti-choice position is fairly friendly to women's rights issues, particularly when it comes to job discrimination (he was the one that implemented the audit and correction of discrimination in state contracts a few years back, for instance) and child care.

He still strikes me as a bit smarmy, but he's a damn sight better than "it-takes-a-woman-staying-home" Santorum.

Whoops. I overpasted a paragraph. Ignore that bit about conflating elections. I changed my mind, but it got left in the copy buffer.

Zed--

I was so incensed by your comments that I didn't take the time to read carefully all the other posts. Damn, the next time I go out to dinner I am bringing my laptop.

Ok, there are so many things I find WRONG about your post. But let me start with what you address to me:

"Aspazia: Name a single Democratic contender other than Casey with a chance of winning Pennsylvania in 2006. If you say Chuck Pennachio, tell me what his available campaign funds are, and why you think this is sufficient. Tell me what your plan is for winning Pennsylvania with that amount of money as a starting point."

What makes you so certain that Casey is a shoo-in. He has not made any substantive public statements about his views. At a recent fundraising event, he begged off certain questions as well. Perhaps he is well-funded like you imply, and a more viable candidate than Pennachio, but HOW IS THAT RELEVANT to me being frustrated with the "progressive organization" holding its nose and supporting him? DFA, in my area, at least was inspired to speak to and advocate for political positions it held dear, including CHOICE. Now, its turned into another sell-out. Now, perhaps you feel emboldened to critize me because you are more seasoned or realistic in your politics. But, I seriously think you should study more carefully the history of the Abortion movement in this country! The womena and men who set out, state-by state to repeal BARBARIC anti-abortion legislation were considered FAR MORE WACKO than any mainstream feminist today. And, they succeeded in changing the laws in Californina, Hawaii, Alaska, New York and chipping away at anti-abortion legislation in Wisconsin, Illinois and DC.

NOw for what I really want to get off my chest. You claim there are no Senators that vote pro-choice. EVIDENCE?

But, more importantly, Republican legislators were crucial to passing abortion repeal laws. Often the Republican politicians were far more in the corner of women's rights than the Catholic-fearing Democrats. Just study New York as a test case.

NARAL has a clear mission. Why would you be surprised that they would support a Republican in their corner? Especially if they have a good record on pro-choice issues. Pro-choice is not necessarily a "partisan" issue, although some right-wingers would like to portray it as such, and ignore their own history. Pro-choice is an issue of AUTONOMY. And, if a political organization prioritized women's autonomy over other Democratic issues, this is their perogative.

But, going back to the original post: you clearly don't understand that "CHOICE" is NOT a peripheral issue. JUST go back and study what it was like in this country before legal abortions.

And, Jenny K and Bitch PhD: You go girls, Sorry I didn't weigh in earlier.

Zed,

I don't think there even *is* a third contender, broke or otherwise, in Rhode Island, just a miserable choice between Chafee and Langevin again.

Langevin (who is anti-choice) dropped out of the Rhode Island primary a while back. There are two Democrats still in the running, Secretary of State Matt Brown and former Attorney General Sheldon Whitehouse, and, as I said upthread, they are both pro-choice.

Also, Chuck Pennachio is running against Casey in the Democratic primary. There will never be a three-way race between Pennachio, Casey, and Santorum (unless Chuck completely loses his mind and decides to run third-party).

What sucks is that the Dem establishment decided to interfere in the primary process and put pressure on Casey's primary challengers to drop out -- for some reason, they feel that Casey will be in a better position to beat Santorum if he doesn't have to fight a primary. [I think that's bullshit, and I hate that.]

Why would you be surprised that they would support a Republican in their corner?

There are no Republicans in NARAL's corner anymore. That's the whole point here. When the chips are down, there isn't a single Republican in the House or Senate willing to stand against their party on this issue.

Especially if they have a good record on pro-choice issues.

Lincoln Chafee does not have a good record on pro-choice issues. He voted to confirm all of Bush's most virulently anti-choice judicial nominees, and there's no reason to think that any amount of money from NARAL will make him change his ways.

Thad--

"What sucks is that the Dem establishment decided to interfere in the primary process and put pressure on Casey's primary challengers to drop out -- for some reason, they feel that Casey will be in a better position to beat Santorum if he doesn't have to fight a primary. [I think that's bullshit, and I hate that.]"

I couldn't agree more with you. The whole thing stinks! Casey has more money than Pennachio for a primary, fine. But the money has been raised on the BELIEF that he is better positioned to beat Santorum. We know a great deal more about what Pennachio stands for than Casey, but dems in PA are dumping money into Casey's coffers in the belief he will beat Santorum. I have seen it first hand. My local DFAers and Dems showing up to give 10,000.00 dollars to Casey and yet having little idea what he stands for. They pledged the money in hopes of finding out what he stood for, and most came away saying: " I like him, he seems like a guy of integrity, blah blah blah." When I asked him what his stance was on a variety of National issues, they had little to say. Anyone who has any experience lobbying will tell you that, at first, any politician seems like a guy or gal of integrity. They are politicians! That is the appearance they go for. What I want to see is SUBSTANCE. And, I am sick of dems giving money to Casey because they have been convinced by more seasoned Dems or whatever that he is the guy to put up against Santorum.

I live in PA. NO one wants to see Santorum gone more than me. That is besides the point. Feminists, at a feminsit blog site, are gonna be pissed off at dems ignoring choice.

Aspazia:

What makes you so certain that Casey is a shoo-in.

But, going back to the original post: you clearly don't understand that "CHOICE" is NOT a peripheral issue.

I never said it was. My point is only that if you can't get a pro-choice candidate in the seat, you probably don't want to rig the election so that the candidate most likely the Republican gets it, because even the ones that make nice noises about being pro-choice vote the wrong way. If you have counterexamples, list them. I'd be interested. You mentioned New York, for instance, but my understanding of New York is that it's been an abysmal failure for women's rights under Pataki. Again, if you have counterexamples, I'm interested.

You claim there are no Senators that vote pro-choice. EVIDENCE?

Aspazia,

I completely sympathize with your frustration at the rush to line up behind Casey, and especially the rush to force all his primary challengers out of the race. Like I said, it sucks that the national Dems basically took away your primary.

However, that doesn't -- or, at least, shouldn't -- have anything to do with NARAL endorsing Chafee. That's a completely different situation in a different state, and the only anti-choice Dem who was ever in the running (Langevin) dropped out a long time ago. The remaining Dems still in the running in Rhode Island (Matt Brown and Sheldon Whitehouse -- both pro-choice) have nothing to do with the national Dem leadership, so I don't get the argument that decent rank-and-file, staunchly pro-choice Dems should be ratfucked by NARAL just because of what went down in PA.

"100% Republican line-up behind Brown"

This is the whole of your evidence that there are no Pro-choice Senators?

How about votes on bills?

Is your claim that there are no pro-choice Republicans limited to the Senate or to ALL Republicans in any office?

Zed--

Regarding my comments about New York, I was referring to 1970, when Assemblywoman Constance Cook forced a bill through repealing abortion laws in a Catholic-heavy state. I am not referring to Pataki.

This is the whole of your evidence that there are no Pro-choice Senators?

What more evidence do you need? When push comes to shove, the Republicans in the senate will always vote to confirm Bush's wingnut judicial nominees -- and those GOP justices (especially when it comes to the Supreme Court) present by far the most serious threat to choice there is.

Aspazia, like I said, I totally understand your frustration with the Democratic leadership, but if you're frustrated now, you're not likely to be less frustrated if you're counting on nominally "pro-choice" Republicans to step up when the heat is on.

Also, you have to understand that today's GOP bears absolutely no resemblance to the GOP of 1970. It is utterly and completely in the thrall of the religious right. Saying that the NY GOP was more supportive of abortion than the NY Dems 35 years ago isn't particularly relevant to the situation we face today.

Thad--

My point is not to compare our present moment to the 1970s. My point is that historically pro-choice allies have been, often, the oddest folks. In Pennsylvania, I am far more likely to find Specter supporting choice than my local Congressman or Santorum. And, historically in PA, the Republicans gave far more money and attention to Planned Parenthood than Dems did.

I am still not convinced that all Republican Senators voting for Brown proves that they are ALL anti-choice. I agree that Brown sucked. I blogged about that awhile ago. But, this came after the crappy crap crap compromise that held off the filibuster. So, it was a done deal that guaranteed that Owen, Pryor and Brown would pass.

Both you and Zed are making rather sweeping claims about all republicans based on this vote. And, Zed is asking for counterexamples. But, rather, the burden of proof lies on him. Show me how this is all the proof you need to conclude that no Republicans (or Senate Republicans) will support ANY pro-choice issues.

Thad:

Langevin (who is anti-choice) dropped out of the Rhode Island primary a while back. There are two Democrats still in the running, Secretary of State Matt Brown and former Attorney General Sheldon Whitehouse, and, as I said upthread, they are both pro-choice.

Also, Chuck Pennachio is running against Casey in the Democratic primary. There will never be a three-way race between Pennachio, Casey, and Santorum (unless Chuck completely loses his mind and decides to run third-party).

What sucks is that the Dem establishment decided to interfere in the primary process and put pressure on Casey's primary challengers to drop out -- for some reason, they feel that Casey will be in a better position to beat Santorum if he doesn't have to fight a primary. [I think that's bullshit, and I hate that.]

The numbers on that don't really change, since the bulk of the money is not spent on the primary (it's kind of suicidal to do so, anyway).

If you want to make a case for Pennachio being able to take Santorum if he wins the primary, I'm listening.

Side note for Aspazia, since I've obviously upset you: if you want to change my mind, this is how it's done. Find and demonstrate errors in my assumptions, and give me names, numbers, facts, and techniques. If you were going to arrange for the money going to Casey to go to Pennachio instead, how would you do it? My starting tip for that is that money breeds money: Casey is getting donations because he already had a 1.5 million war chest going in, which is sufficient to be a credible threat. As it stands, those donations are *not* going to Pennachio, and if you want Pennachio to be a useful candidate, you're going to have to change that. Somehow I don't think Casey will suddenly donate his coffers if Pennachio beats him in the primary, though that's certainly the best tactical decision for a party loyalist suddenly out of the running.

"if you want to change my mind, this is how it's done. Find and demonstrate errors in my assumptions, and give me names, numbers, facts, and techniques."

Could you get more condescending? I have been doing exactly that.

But, perhaps, what you want me to do is change your mind on whether or not Pennachio can beat Casey. If so, then we are talking at cross purposes. My basic objection to the line of thought I have seen here is that we should choose Dems anytime over pro-choice Republicans. And, I believe, you are arguing that we should choose Anti-Choice Dems over Pro-choice Republicans. To demonstrate to me that the former is always the better choice, you provided the "evidence" that all the Republican voted for Brown. This, I take it, constitutes the necessary and sufficient evidence for your argument. So, being the skeptic that I am, I proposed that you are unfamiliar with the history of the Abortion movement in this country, wherein a great deal of republicans were crucial to that fight.

But, this discussion is perhaps confusing to me (and you?) because I still don't know, exactly, what I am likely to get from an Anti-choice Democrat that is better than a Pro-Choice Republican? What other goods do the Democrats bring? Look at Ed Rendell, for example, does he count as an example of Democrat-better-than-Republican?

Aspazia:

And, Zed is asking for counterexamples. But, rather, the burden of proof lies on him. Show me how this is all the proof you need to conclude that no Republicans (or Senate Republicans) will support ANY pro-choice issues.

Huh? Why would the burden of proof lie on me, when my position is basically the status quo? I'm sitting on top of things as they already are. If you want me to help make a change, the burden of proof is on you.

I'll make it easy, though: the next major reproductive rights issue in the Senate is going to be the Child Custody Protection Act -- and since it doesn't need a committe, it will go up for a floor vote as soon as Frist can get past the procedural blocks that Democrats, not Republicans, have been throwing up. Which Republicans are you counting on to stop it? Can you name even one who has spoken up to say that he or she will oppose this bill?

Aspazia:

"if you want to change my mind, this is how it's done. Find and demonstrate errors in my assumptions, and give me names, numbers, facts, and techniques."

Could you get more condescending? I have been doing exactly that.

One name, outdated. No numbers, no new facts, no techniques. I'll need something a little more substantial than, "I think you're wrong!"

I'm not married to my conclusions. I can be convinced, if you can demonstrate tactical error. I need quite a bit more than you're giving me, though.

Mojo Blog has a great breakdown of the issue:

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2005/08/in_defense_of_n.html

Whoops, posted too soon.

Quoting Aspazia again:

But, this discussion is perhaps confusing to me (and you?) because I still don't know, exactly, what I am likely to get from an Anti-choice Democrat that is better than a Pro-Choice Republican?

Votes against people like Brown or Roberts. Investigation into sex discrimination in Federal matters. Better access to birth control. Repudiation of "women's place is in the home" type measures. Better access to child care for working mothers. All of these are Casey vs. Santorum benefits.

I am far more likely to find Specter supporting choice than my local Congressman or Santorum.

Since Bush took office, what has Specter actually done to support choice? Which Bush judicial nominees has he voted against? Which pieces of anti-choice legislation has he voted against? If the Dems in the Senate try to filibuster Rogers, can we count on Specter to join us?

Slight retraction: Aspazia was in fact responding to me, not to Thad. Apologies; I'm getting tired.

Mojo Blog has a great breakdown of the issue

Except Plumer's analysis is completely worthless, because Langevin has dropped out of the race, and the RI contest will be between a nominally "pro-choice" Republican and a genuinely pro-choice Democrat.

Plumer is also wrong that Chaffee "votes pro-choice 100 percent of the time. 100 percent!" Not on judicial nominees, he doesn't.

[Apparently, Brad also knew that Langevin had dropped out of the race at the time he wrote his post, which rather invites the question, why the hell did he go ahead with the post if it was just an exercise in counterfactuals? If a frog had wings, etc.]

Additional side note, since I ended up digging for a few more facts instead of going to bed:

The only Senate Republicans to oppose the late term abortion ban passed in 2003 were Chafee (whoa, he actually *was* good for something, despite having later publically repudiated NARAL), Collins, and Snowe. Collins and Snowe are both women. If I recall correctly, they're not the only Republican senators that are women by a long shot, either, leaving a large number on the wrong side, but I'll concede this much: you find a *woman* pro-choice Republican running against an anti-choice Democrat and I'll take a very hard look before throwing in behind the Democrat.

That's not the case in anything current, though.

Well Zed, that seems like a rather fair concession. While I was away I was studying the votes of Collins, Snowe, Murkowski, Domenici and Specter. I think, in particular, that the women mentioned here may prove to be better than anti-choice democrats. also think that its likely they will oppose the Child Custody Act, or at least some of them. Right now, all we have is 37 male, republican co-sponsors of the bill sitting in the Judiciary.

Let's see what happens

Quoting Thad:

Since Bush took office, what has Specter actually done to support choice? Which Bush judicial nominees has he voted against? Which pieces of anti-choice legislation has he voted against?

“As the record shows, I have supported every one of President Bush’s nominees in the Judiciary Committee and on the Senate floor. I have never and would never apply any litmus test on the abortion issue and, as the record shows, I have voted to confirm Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice O’Connor, and Justice Kennedy and led the fight to confirm Justice Thomas.

“I have already sponsored a protocol calling for a Judiciary Committee hearing within thirty days of a nomination, a vote out of Committee thirty days later, and floor action thirty days after that. I am committed to such prompt action by the Committee on all of President Bush’s nominees.

“In light of the repeated filibusters by the Democrats in the last Senate session, I am concerned about a potential repetition of such filibusters. I expect to work well with President Bush in the judicial confirmation process in the years ahead.”

He also voted in favor of the partial birth abortion ban, and against an amendment to it that would make contraceptives more easily available. I think he's still riding on his opposition to Bork for his "pro-choice-friendly" credentials.

"Langevin (who is anti-choice) dropped out of the Rhode Island primary a while back. There are two Democrats still in the running....and, as I said upthread, they are both pro-choice."

Which seems to show that it worked to some extent, even if it pissed a lot of people off in the process. The question isn't so much how any one or two races by themselves are going to affect the Senate, it's not even about how "seriously" the Democratic Party takes NARAL, but how careful Democrats are now going to be about making sure that their candidates stay pro-choice.

I'm not trying to argue that NARAL is godlike and doesn't make mistakes - I'm taking issue with:

1) The idea that their choices are naive. NARAL has been around for 30 years. Show them some fucking respect. If they are making what you consider to be mistakes, say so. If you think that they are stupid and wrong, say so. But don't patronise a group that's older than I am by calling naive. It's not like they don't have any experience in politics - or with taking the gloves off.

2) The twin ideas that it's NARAL's responsibility to find pro-choice Democratic candidates or that not helping Democrats is by definition hurting their cause. As for the latter, in the short run, perhaps - depending on how and the extent to which its done. It's NARAL's job to find and support pro-choice candidates. It's the Democratic Party's job to make sure theses candidates are Democrats. In the long run, NARAL's interest are best served by making it harder for either party to win with an anti-choice candidate. As long as being pro-choice is just something Democrats are, it's always something Democrats can decide that it's useful to compromise on.

You aren't failing to convince me because I don't think your arguements have merit, but because of what I know of the history of the women's movement. The "deciding" vote for the 19th Amendment came from a Republican. Wilson became a vocal supporter of women's suffrage because suffragette's wouldn't let the issue drop, not because they excused him simply because he was better than the Republicans. Second wave feminism, and all the gains that came with it, came about because liberal women decided to ignore the "advice" of liberal men and not wait "until the time was right."

Zed:

"Why don't you go do something productive, instead, like finding (or creating!) a place where a pro-choice candidate can win, or working on a way to take money out of the equation?"

How the fuck do you know I'm not?

"Nobody is asking you to make sandwiches."

Dude, that was a joke. In response to the idea floating around that NARAL should follow the advice of the Democrats - simply because they are better than the Republicans. Because it just smacks a bit too much of what sparked second wave feminism to begin with.

"*I* am asking you to either make things better, or at least avoid making them worse. Fundamentally, that's what Kos is trying to say as well, though he's admittedly being a prick about it.""

No, you may think this, but apparently Markos thinks we should focus on "important shit."

The random guy on the street who orders me to smile is being a prick, but you know what else? He's supporting sexism too, whether he "means" to or not. I may listen to what he has to say on feminism, sexism, and how feminists can best obtain their goals, but I'm going to take his advice with a big fancy restaurant sized salt-shaker amount of salt - at the very least. Same with Markos and his "advice" on how NARAL can best obtain their goals.

Which is why I was so happy to find an alternate analysis on the whole Chafee debate. It's not that I think Markos, or any of you, are deliberately lying, or that that particular analysis is spot on. It's just that you have your biases (and I have mine). Plus, the whole idea that NARAL is simply being naive doesn't really sound logical to me.

Jenny K:

You aren't failing to convince me because I don't think your arguements have merit, but because of what I know of the history of the women's movement. The "deciding" vote for the 19th Amendment came from a Republican.

That was in *1920*. As late as 1980, I might have agreed with you, even. Nowadays, the party has gone so far bad that I'm subtly surprised any time a Republican congresscritter actually demonstrates integrity (which isn't to say that the Democrats don't have their share of crooks, but at least the entire party isn't rotten). The only Republican senator I can think of off the top of my head that I actually respect is McCain -- but he's not exactly a women's rights politician, to put it mildly, and even his integrity can be a little... inconsistent. There are at least two Republican Senate women who will vote pro-choice on some occasions, but the bills aren't as important as the judges (who determine enforcement of Constitutional protections). On top of that, control of the Senate means control over which bills ever see a vote at all. If the Democrats gain control in 2006, it actually won't matter much if we're short a few votes for protecting women's rights... the bills will die in committee. If they don't... well, judging from 2003, there aren't enough Republicans willing to break party lines long enough to help.

But I'm starting to repeat myself. I'm a little fixated on 2006 Senate control, because I think it's the best, and maybe only chance of reversing most of the damage done in the last half decade.

Which is why I was so happy to find an alternate analysis on the whole Chafee debate. It's not that I think Markos, or any of you, are deliberately lying, or that that particular analysis is spot on. It's just that you have your biases (and I have mine). Plus, the whole idea that NARAL is simply being naive doesn't really sound logical to me.

Okay, really bedtime now.

Might be best to dust off that apron.

Which seems to show that it worked to some extent, even if it pissed a lot of people off in the process.

Jenny, NARAL endorsed Chafee after Langevin had already dropped out. That makes no sense -- the Dem primary was still months away, and the only pro-life candidate in the race had already dropped out. NARAL got what they wanted -- they forced Langevin out (which, BTW, I was very much in favor of) -- and then, for reasons that nobody really understands, they went ahead and ratfucked the remaining pro-choice Dems in the race by endorsing Chafee. That's a horrible, horrible mistake, and it hurts everyone involved -- it hurts NARAL's credibility with their donor base, it hurts Dems who want to take a stand for choice (by sending the message that NARAL will stab you in the back anyway), it sows needless bad blood between NARAL and the Democratic party, and it hurts the cause of choice in America by supporting someone who will reliably vote for anti-choice judges every time they come up.

Look, I'm all in favor of ratfucking Dems who won't toe the line on choice -- especially in pro-choice states, and especially by running strong primary challengers or forcing pro-life candidates (like Langevin) out. But ratfucking pro-choice Democrats doesn't make any sense. There's just no justification for what NARAL did here.

1) The idea that their choices are naive. NARAL has been around for 30 years. Show them some fucking respect. If they are making what you consider to be mistakes, say so. If you think that they are stupid and wrong, say so. But don't patronise a group that's older than I am by calling naive. It's not like they don't have any experience in politics - or with taking the gloves off.

Jenny, due respect, but if NARAL act naive, I'm going to go ahead and call them naive. Look, I'm a member of an AFL-CIO-affiliated union. The AFL-CIO have been around for a lot longer than NARAL. I'm still perfectly willing to say that the AFL-CIO leadership is, frequently, un-fucking-believably naive (which is why SEIU and the rest finally bolted).

I still respect and support the AFL-CIO, of course, and I still respect and support NARAL. Both substantially more good than harm, and Kos is an idiot for writing NARAL off based on this one incident. But we should also not hesitate to NARAL on their bullshit when they make bullshit decisions, and this Chafee thing is 100% bullshit.

I've kind of lost track of this thread, but I did want to point out that Kos (and Drum, and Hillary Clinton, and the guy who was competing with Dean for leadership of the DNC) have been saying for quite some time now that the Dems need to "moderate" their stance on reproductive rights. I've seen at least three posts by Kos on this very subject, and then there was the pie fight thing in which he was *extremely* dismissive of feminists for being "divisive" and "everything that's wrong with the left" (those are paraphrases, not direct quotes). So it is in that context that feminists don't buy Kos telling us what we "should" and should not do in order to support him and the Democratic party.

I mean, look at the post in question in the present case. He *isn't* just saying he's not a fan of NARAL. He's being dismissive of not only their announcement to people to please make pro-choice "visible" in Democratic rhetoric--and they praised his blog, too--but of women who take the importance of a pro-choice platform seriously. He *is* basically saying we should fall in line behind the boys and just assume that our needs will get met when they get around to it (after they win). And given how many anti-abortion Dems have been rising to prominent positions lately, well, we're just not so willing to take his word for it that they're necessarily better for abortion rights than the Rs are.

The point is we *aren't* naive. We're not naive enough to just assume that our interests will be watched out for if we don't make a point of defending them. And we resent being told that that's what we're supposed to do, and being condescended to ("how naive") for refusing to just do as we're told.

Well, I won't be voting for Casey. If he had cleared a legit primary, I would've considered it, but when Chuck Schumer decided he knew what was best for me and other Pennsylvania Democrats, that changed things considerably. It's a shame too because I really would've liked to vote against Santorum.

I'm also not going to pretend like I don't understand why NARAL endorsed Chaffee. NARAL has made huge mistakes in the past such as endorsing Zell Miller for GA governor in the Dem primary in 1990, but this arguably isn't one of them. Why would any republican ever bother to be responsive at all to NARAL's concerns if it's next to impossible to win their endorsement? If your goal is to maximize polarization in the sense that the Dems are the party of choice and the GOP the anti-abortion party, then okay, but I don't see what that accomplishes really. Especially when the Democrats have no power. That said maybe the timing wasn't great, but that's my only criticism.

Ok. I have been following this whole debate, here and at Kos and so far I have kept my comments to myself. But I think there are a few things that really need to be said:
First -- please refrain from the condescending comments like “it's a really good idea for more women to participate in political discussion, if for no other reason than practice” you are debating smart activist women here, we do not need practice anymore than you do.

Now to the meat of my comments:

1. Do your research! Read Keenan’s explanation of the NARAL decision, you’ll find that it makes a lot of sense. Here is a Providence Journal article all about it: www.projo.com/news/content/projo_20050520_naral20.255208c.html
Keenan says that NARAL has a policy of supporting incumbents and says, “we stand by our friends” – and Chafee is a friend of choice. (more on that later) She explains that she wanted to endorse him early because his major republican opponent whose only recorded statement about abortion is that seeing sonograms of his children made him want to “protect life” – yikes.

2. Chafee is on record supporting many choice issues: Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004), Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003), Voted NO on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000), Rated 90% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003), Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004) and he continues to fight to protect the filibuster. His democrat opponents have no record on these issues (which is precisely why NARAL has a policy of supporting incumbents).

Enough facts for you?

His democrat opponents have no record on these issues

That's actually not true. Brown and Whitehouse both have a solid pro-choice track record. They're not in the Senate yet so obviously it's not possible to do a vote-for-vote comparison with Chafee, but there's no reason to think either of them would be less supportive of choice than Chafee, and lots of reasons to believe either one of them would be significantly more supportive of choice when it comes to judicial nominees. Not to mention the single most effective way to protect choice right now would be for the Dems to retake the Senate before any more Supreme court justices resign, and Rhode Island is one of our best chances for a Senate pickup.

(which is precisely why NARAL has a policy of supporting incumbents).

And the above is precisely why I think that policy is naive and stupid in today's political climate.

Madeline:

First -- please refrain from the condescending comments like “it's a really good idea for more women to participate in political discussion, if for no other reason than practice” you are debating smart activist women here, we do not need practice anymore than you do.

If I hadn't made my position on that explicit, given my disagreement with NARAL's techniques, I expect I would have been attacked for not supporting that women make their voices heard.

A lot gets lost in translation without the verbal and nonverbal cues. Assuming condescension or hostility doesn't help the discussion. Absent evidence that I've suddenly morphed into a forum troll (and I think my writing is easily distinguishable from Iguana's), I'd appreciate it if I (and others posting contrary views) could be extended the benefit of the doubt.

Thad has already covered the political aspect of your comment better than I could.

"That was in *1920*"

Yeah, so what? You all seem to assume I expect Chafee or other Republicans to, for some odd reason, buck part lines just because they've said they would. Again, please stop assuming I'm that naive. The whole point about Harry Burn and Wilson was not that Republicans were better allies in that fight than Democrats, but that we needed Republican allies to win, not just Democrats in office. Markos, et al, keep talking abort women's rights as of they are something that only the Democrats can accomplish. The truth is that as long as only the Democrats are working to accomplish them, they won't be.

Women did not win the right to vote because the Democrats were better than the Republicans and the Democrats were in power, but because the suffragette's wouldn't let up and were smart enough to be even harder on their (so-called) allies than their opponents when they deserved it. Or, you, know, what Jedmunds said. I can see timing being an issue, but the overall strategy isn't.

"..we should also not hesitate to NARAL on their bullshit...and this Chafee thing is 100% bullshit."

Even so, is it naive? (And you've got to be the only person I've ever heard claim they call unions naive.) Either way, I still think it's dumb, at the very least because it probably inaccurrate. Zed's assemssment that they are being dinosaurs seems more likely to be correct, and knowing what the problem actually is would kinda help if one actually wants it solved.

As a former Rho-dylander- I have to say- as staunchly anti-republican as I am, Lincoln Chafee is not your average republican. He supports choice and gay marriage- and has gone against Bush and Co. possibly more times than some democrats I could think of. He's quite disliked by his party, and it's been speculated that he'll probably switch to democrat or independent next election (not that I think democrats are any great shakes either, to be frank.) I'm not saying he's super, I'm just saying he's not actually quite that bad... for a republican.

As a former Rho-dylander- I have to say- as staunchly anti-republican as I am, Lincoln Chafee is not your average republican. He supports choice and gay marriage- and has gone against Bush and Co. possibly more times than some democrats I could think of. He's quite disliked by his party, and it's been speculated that he'll probably switch to democrat or independent next election (not that I think democrats are any great shakes either, to be frank.) I'm not saying he's super, I'm just saying he's not actually quite that bad... for a republican.